CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › hiddenhound3 › Posts

Posts by hiddenhound3

354 posts shown.

Jerry Martinez5 said:It's about feeling better than you deserve in that specific moment. For instance, maybe you're 25 and desperate to be independent. You're struggling because you haven't graduated yet and your parents are breathing down your neck. AD gives you a boost more than you deserve, but what you actually need is help fixing your life: graduating, finding a job, moving out of your parents' house 👍

You can't change that internal sense of inadequacy without changing your actual circumstances. Unless you use drugs: which is just a temporary fix with a massive list of side effects 👎

I am of the opinion that the process actually works in reverse: once you achieve internal maturity, that stability begins to manifest in your external reality. Regardless, I find that one's twenties are a uniquely turbulent decade and quite a prime period for experiencing depression.
Jerry Martinez5 said:In that sense, AD is expensive: it makes you feel better than you actually deserve. I guess lonegardener just took it a step further.

I’ve taken this argument to an absurd level. AD is just an escape from a grim reality—it’s meant to give someone a window of opportunity to actually start fixing that reality. If they don't take that chance, I guess eventually even the pills won't be enough to help. 😢

Alright, someone help a girl out—I've decided to go off AD on my own! I think there’s a massive misunderstanding happening here. I mean, maybe I’m just reading too much into it, but it feels like everyone is missing the point entirely. Regarding what Hannah Davis18 said—honestly, I don't know how you can even argue that. It’s pretty straightforward if you actually look at the facts. And then you have Jerry Martinez5 chiming in with those wild theories... I guess it’s easy to get carried away, but it’s a bit much, isn't it? I read what Eric Thomas89 posted earlier, and while I see where he's coming from, I still think the logic is a little thin. Maybe it’s just me. But seriously, the way people are reacting to this is almost comical. It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck. Anyway, just my two cents. I’ll probably just sit back and watch this mess unfold.

Why would anyone say "better than you deserve"? 😢 Doesn't everyone deserve to feel wonderful?

I would argue that it qualifies as a drug because it relies on an external, chemical factor to artificially elevate our mood.
Jerry Martinez5 said:Wait, hasn't this already been answered? Or am I just mixing up different threads? 😕

Antidepressants only ease the symptoms. In that sense, they mask them. Depression isn't cured by meds; they're just a tool used during treatment. They dampen the symptoms just enough so you can actually face your problems.

The only real way to treat it, as far as I know, is psychotherapy. The goal there is to change the person—how they view themselves, their life, and the world around them. People who just pop pills and wait for it to pass... 👎

Oh, I see; I merely wished to hear it confirmed one more time.
I find myself pondering a similar question—is there truly a cure for depression in principle, or are antidepressants merely legalized substances that provide the same chemical escapism as illicit drugs?
Furthermore, is it actually possible to develop a dependency on these medications?
To be honest, I find the idea that antidepressants actually "cure" depression rather unconvincing; it feels more like they simply mask the symptoms or attempt to invert them rather than addressing the root cause.
Portraits that inspire you in Spirituality ·
image

Sergio Celibidache (*July 28, 1912 – August 14, 1996, in Neuville-sur-Essonna near Paris) was a German conductor and music educator of Romanian descent.

Born to a cavalry officer whose family name was actually Celebidachi, he ended up carrying what was technically a "misspelled" surname for the rest of his life due to a clerical error by the German authorities.

His academic journey began primarily in Bucharest and later moved to Berlin, where he delved into philosophy, mathematics, and music—studying composition under Heinz Tiessen, counterpoint with Hugo Distler, conducting with Walter Gmeindl, and philosophy with Eduard Spranger. Although he completed his dissertation on Josquin Desprez, the circumstances of the war prevented him from officially receiving his doctorate. From 1945 to 1952, he served as the interim conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic, stepping into the role following Wilhelm Furtwängler.

Following his departure from the Berlin Philharmonic, he worked extensively with various South American orchestras and led ensembles in Stockholm, Copenhagen, Italy, and Paris. Between 1972 and 1977, he held the leadership of the Stuttgart Radio Orchestra. From 1979 until his passing, he served as the General Director of the Munich Philharmonic, achieving immense international acclaim, particularly through his interpretations of Anton Bruckner. He famously performed Bruckner’s works at the monastery church of Saint Florian near Linz, where the composer is buried. In 1985, he inaugurated a new concert hall in Munich, where he was affectionately known by his nickname, "Celi."

In a striking departure from Herbert von Karajan, he distanced himself from the commercialization of music via records and CDs, effectively positioning himself as Karajan's philosophical antithesis. His stance was rooted in deep conviction: music is not a commodity to be preserved in a jar, but a living entity that exists only in the fleeting moment of its creation, almost in a state of *in statu nascendi*. Because he avoided studio recordings, the first CDs featuring excerpts from his concerts were only released after his death.
In his later years, he became well-known for his slower tempos. His conducting style was devoid of arbitrary, harsh, or unfounded dramatic effects. While he commanded a global following, reactions to his work were often polarized—ranging from thunderous, enthusiastic applause to irrational criticism.
One of his most formidable detractors was the prominent Munich critic Joachim Kaiser, who frequently argued that Celibidache's interpretations lacked sufficient inner tension.
Celibidache was also notorious for his exhaustive rehearsal processes. This leads to the intriguing possibility that his interpretations reached their peak of transcendence during rehearsals, whereas the actual concerts might have felt less intense because the constant repetition had stripped away some of the spontaneous tension.

He drew significant wisdom from Zen Buddhism and was a follower of the Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba. He sought to weave the spiritual insights gained from these traditions directly into his musicality and pass them on to his students. Furthermore, he strove to strip away the ego from the performance, allowing the pure essence of the music to resonate.
He also resisted the very concept of "interpretation," believing the term implied an individualistic ego that had nothing to do with the organic unfolding of a musical work. Under his guidance, many compositions—most notably those by Brahms and Bruckner—were brought to life in a way that felt entirely new and transcendent.
As a dedicated educator, he taught seminars and courses at universities in Trier, Mainz, Munich, and Paris, as well as in his own home. He worked closely with student orchestras and the Schleswig-Holstein Festival Orchestra, always offering his instruction free of charge.

Throughout his lifetime, he was honored with numerous prestigious awards.

He passed away in an old mill in the region of Neuville-sur-Essonna near Paris, where he had lived with his wife. He was laid to rest in the small village cemetery there.

Sergio as a teacher. This is a gentle description; I have seen accounts where he would shout, mock, or nearly strike his conducting students.

Sergio Celibidache as a conductor

😍
Ed Gein sentenced in Psychology ·
velvetrider said:look, you love being on top, so why even bother trying? you need certain qualities for that which you just don't have—not that I'm looking for a debate with you, since you aren't really up there, seriously...
I'm just looking for some answers so I can wrap this up. I
mean, go watch that movie Idiocracy or something, just check out the intro.
And since you're clearly not a parent, it makes sense that you don't have any maternal instinct.
But you owe me answers just because you're acting like a moderator...
Those were your own claims, after all, so if I'm not going to make fun of them, maybe clarify them first so we can laugh about it together. 😉
It seems like wasting time hurts you more than... well, losing your grip on reality, right Franjo?


I'm no moral crusader—it's more like you're having trouble following logic, girl. Which part makes it seem like I'm right? You're just dismissing things... 😉
instead of using words to explain, it's more about the whole structure of sin.
Only truly sick people don't know what sin is.
You literally wrote that your family situation was similar to Fritzl's and that you wouldn't even punish him... so you know what sin is, it's just that you aren't a good person, as long as nothing bad happens to you.
There's this one expression, so go ahead, show off your power and answer—no debating (since you obviously don't get the meaning of words anyway) -just questions and answers- , because I'm not trying to change you.

🤣 really?! where on earth does it say that?
I owe you absolutely nothing.


you wrote yourself that your family is similar to the Fritzl situation and that you wouldn't punish him... you are aware of the sins involved, yet it seems as though it doesn't matter if you aren't a good person, as long as nothing happens to you.

is that truly what you concluded from this?

hiddenhound3 said:
Jerry Martinez5 As stated by:
I haven't had the opportunity to read through all the various articles regarding Jeffrey Dahmer, but even before I delved into this specific thread, one central question remained on my mind: what happened to the mother? It seems fundamentally impossible to accept the narrative that she was entirely oblivious to the situation. One has to wonder about the neighbors or the extended family; surely someone must have been investigated for complicity or at least for turning a blind eye to what was happening under their own roof.

That is precisely what I consider to be the central enigma of the entire situation. According to one of the articles, Jeffrey Dahmer claimed that his daughter had simply left home to join some sort of cult.
It is truly remarkable that a mother and her four siblings could go twenty-four years without once reaching out to check on their own daughter—their own sister. If I didn't have someone in my immediate inner circle who lived through a nearly identical situation, I would find such a thing utterly shocking. However, since this isn't an isolated case for me, I am forced to reach a rather blunt conclusion: the entire family is psychologically dysfunctional.

Article

I am uncertain what is troubling you—whether it is difficulty with social interaction or a fundamental misunderstanding of the text 🤷

but I see nowhere where I claim my family is similar to the Fritzl case...
I have a different example—for one individual in my family, when they left home, there was no inquiry into their whereabouts or well-being for 19 years, which through that silence directly supported conformism and glossed over the act of a crime...
Ed Gein sentenced in Psychology ·
velvetrider said:it's basically a double-barreled blank against some poor kid so you're just messing around here....

Come on florine, be as decent as you are—pick one, smart or pretty, I guess—and show some manners by answering, okay? The questions are waiting.
You're rolling in here like the US Cavalry in an old Western movie. 🙂

Haven't you realized yet that I simply have no desire to debate you? To me, this is nothing more than a waste of my precious time. I have already said everything I intended to say.

You have cast yourself in the role of some self-righteous moral crusader, and frankly, you are giving yourself far too much credit.
Ed Gein sentenced in Psychology ·
🙂

Well... it looks like the shooting has finally started.

🤣
Ed Gein sentenced in Psychology ·
Jerry Martinez5 As stated by:
I haven't had the opportunity to read through all the various articles regarding Jeffrey Dahmer, but even before I delved into this specific thread, one central question remained on my mind: what happened to the mother? It seems fundamentally impossible to accept the narrative that she was entirely oblivious to the situation. One has to wonder about the neighbors or the extended family; surely someone must have been investigated for complicity or at least for turning a blind eye to what was happening under their own roof.

That is precisely what I consider to be the central enigma of the entire situation. According to one of the articles, Jeffrey Dahmer claimed that his daughter had simply left home to join some sort of cult.
It is truly remarkable that a mother and her four siblings could go twenty-four years without once reaching out to check on their own daughter—their own sister. If I didn't have someone in my immediate inner circle who lived through a nearly identical situation, I would find such a thing utterly shocking. However, since this isn't an isolated case for me, I am forced to reach a rather blunt conclusion: the entire family is psychologically dysfunctional.

Article
Ed Gein sentenced in Psychology ·
dustyskipper3 said:@bluemaker52
I guess I interpreted the post by florin about evil as this idea that human malice should be treated like a mental illness. Brain research regarding killers seems to be heading in that direction—it’s been found that some people who commit murder lack certain connections in their temporal lobes, which I suppose makes it harder for them to exercise rational control over their impulses. Other criminals are usually sociopaths, maybe because they were deprived of parental love or something like that. Now, I don't mean to say that everyone will inevitably turn out that way if they don't get enough affection, but I suppose it's similar to other illnesses. Like, if you smoke, it doesn't mean you're definitely going to get cancer, but it certainly increases the risk, I guess.
The problematic part, though, is why psychiatrists should be the ones called upon to treat human evil. Who monitors their own darkness? (Which brings me back to that question: who watches the watchmen?) In the spirit of anti-psychiatry, I might suggest that in cases involving these psychopathic monsters, therapy should perhaps be prescribed to society as a whole, rather than just to the individual. And it seems like people in Austria are really pushing back against that specific idea. They just want to punish Josef Fritzl, basically turn him into ground meat, and in doing so, they sort of descend to the level of that cannibal in psychiatric prisons.
So, the real issue is trying to determine how much of the Josef Fritzl phenomenon was caused by societal rot versus how much he is personally to blame. Maybe society is 100% innocent and he is 100% a psychopathic criminal, or maybe it's an 80/20 split, or perhaps 40/60. It's hard to say, and maybe it isn't even important.
In the US, we have psychopaths who massacre entire schools, and then you look at Finland, which is one of the most peaceful places on earth, where nobody really blames Finnish society for such things. But in the US, there is this very prominent culture of violence, of success at any cost, and stepping on the poor, etc.
So, I suppose society always plays some kind of role in these occurrences.

Precisely. However, this perspective is not entirely my own. I have dedicated a significant portion of my time to studying M. S. peckati, who attempts, albeit unsuccessfully, to decouple the concepts of evil and illness in his book People of Lies. Within those pages, I encountered numerous examples that are perfectly commonplace in our contemporary society—examples that our culture continues to endorse due to its inherent blindness and desire for conformity.
The Josef Fritzl case would fit quite seamlessly into that collection of examples.
Ed Gein sentenced in Psychology ·
Sandra Parker3 said:I have no idea what you don't believe; haven't I repeated myself three times already?

...Sandra Parker3, I have no desire to compete with you regarding moral superiority, since I don't know anyone who doesn't have a counterweight within themselves. I simply dared to state my opinion, which is that I am worried about people who are too quick to pull the trigger... or do you think those people are fine, even if it's just a metaphorical joke...

I'm not competing. I'm just politely asking you—for the umpteenth time—to explain where exactly you see aesthetics in this case, and while we're at it, I'd like to expand the question to include the nobility you claim to see. You didn't answer. Tell me, I'm interested in different perspectives. Where is the nobility and the aesthetic here? It isn't enough to just say you believe there's a counterweight. I am asking you, in this specific instance, where is it?
And if you actually answer, I'm also curious how that counterweight supposedly works.

I'm not "quick on the trigger," if you're referring to me. As for my take on the death penalty... I don't have a final stance, we can discuss it on another thread, though thinking about it would honestly exhaust me. And since you're being so flippant, I'll assume that based on the fact that you keep pushing this "bullet" metaphor, even though it should be obvious that the average American who might support capital punishment wouldn't actually go out and execute "participants." That's just total bullshit.

...I'm not one to dwell on "what ifs." For me, there is only the concrete situation.

What do you think—would I be wearing sneakers or braids if I were a resistance fighter? 🙄

But no, no, no! There is no such thing as just a "concrete situation!" There is the courtroom.
However, among those who study these cases seriously on a scientific level, the answer is no. It's about what goes on inside people's heads—what drives them to do what they do and what they are willing to endure.
You aren't interesting; your sneakers don't matter. If someone were actually going to analyze you as a resistance fighter, I bet they'd look elsewhere. Given your mindset, would you have committed atrocities like massacres during the war, or would you have stayed on the sidelines? Now *that* is an actual question.

...and lest I forget... since you are so convinced that death, or capital punishment, can prevent monstrous acts, how do you explain the fact that they keep happening even after so many criminals have been executed? 😕

But... I am not convinced.
Are you sitting on your ears? Or your sneakers?

Now, I ask you to please quote me directly—where did I ever claim his behavior was noble or aesthetic? When I wrote about that subject, I was referencing Edgar Allan Poe, though I did mention others who exist on the "fringes." I see no need to explain further, given that you seem intent on drawing your own arbitrary conclusions regardless. At no point did I link the name Josef Fritzl with the concept of nobility. If you intend to continue drawing such baseless conclusions in the future, I shall view it as nothing more than a tactic of suggestion.🙂

Then again, perhaps there is some nobility to be found. It strikes me that he is merely protecting his wife, who, by my standards, is a far greater monster than he is. Has he ever once placed her where she truly belongs—as a full participant in the crime and as someone who explicitly sanctioned his actions?

Nobility wears many masks, and certainly, not all of them are acceptable.
Ed Gein sentenced in Psychology ·
bluemaker52 said:I have to apologize once again, but I simply can't let this pass without adding my two cents:

I’ve never been one to dwell on "what ifs." Why waste energy spinning webs of hypothetical scenarios? For me, there is only the reality right in front of my face—the concrete, tangible situation at hand.

What do you think I’d be wearing if I were a partisan fighter? Would I have opted for rugged sneakers or some kind of heavy knit boots? 🙄

And I shouldn't forget... since you’re so absolutely convinced that capital punishment can act as a deterrent against monstrous acts, how exactly do you account for the fact that these crimes just keep happening? If we've already executed so many criminals, why does the cycle of evil continue unabated? 😕

Haven't you heard about those four missing girls from that same timeframe? One of them was actually found strangled and assaulted, her body just discarded in a nearby lake. Isn't it chilling how these things happen?
We tend to view our homes as sanctuaries—the one place where we should feel truly safe. When you see organized shelters being set up, it’s a clear sign of premeditated planning. It shows that someone hasn't just reacted to a crisis, but has actually "trained" for it. If you can't continue your daily life out on the streets, what does that say about the stability of our environment? Does it mean the systems we rely on have already begun to fail us?

As you mentioned yourself, you just don't truly grasp it until you've actually lived through it. It’s almost as if you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth—and I don't mean that as a personal jab. Rather, I'm talking about a certain detachment from the reality of those around you. It’s that mindset of "let them eat cake" when people are struggling to put bread on the table. Do you see what I mean?
It seems like you’re hitting on the exact same issue we see with the "prevention is better than cure" philosophy. Your observations really tie back to the broader picture I’ve been painting in my other posts—specifically that one regarding the death penalty. It all points to the same fundamental dilemma, doesn't it?
Some people are paralyzed by fear, too terrified to even attempt what needs to be done. But those who have already made up their minds? They’ll keep at it with the same relentless consistency as a sunny day, no matter how many times they have to repeat the process. Whether it’s driven by conscious intent or some deep-seated, "unconscious" impulse, it all stems from that same fundamental lack of empathy ingrained during their upbringing—which brings me right back to where I previously praised you.
It’s essentially a fundamental law of nature: if you catch an illness early enough, you can get the necessary treatment before it has the chance to spread. Isn't that the whole point? If we don't intervene at the onset, how can we ever hope to contain the damage?
Look, speaking from my own perspective as someone who lived through those wartime struggles, I’m certain she wouldn't have had the luxury of hair, let alone the ability to style it. Dealing with typhus back then was a brutal reality, so that's my direct answer to your "what if" scenario. How could anyone maintain an appearance like that under such conditions?
Could you give this some thought? I’d really love to hear what you think about it.

Haven't you heard about those four missing girls from that same timeframe? One of them was actually found strangled and assaulted, her body just discarded in a nearby lake. Isn't it chilling how these things happen?
We tend to view our homes as sanctuaries—the one place where we should feel truly safe. When you see organized shelters being set up, it’s a clear sign of premeditated planning. It shows that someone hasn't just reacted to a crisis, but has actually "trained" for it. If you can't continue your daily life out on the streets, what does that say about the stability of our environment? Does it mean the systems we rely on have already begun to fail us?

As you mentioned yourself, you just don't truly grasp it until you've actually lived through it. It’s almost as if you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth—and I don't mean that as a personal jab. Rather, I'm talking about a certain detachment from the reality of those around you. It’s that mindset of "let them eat cake" when people are struggling to put bread on the table. Do you see what I mean?
It seems like you’re hitting on the exact same issue we see with the "prevention is better than cure" philosophy. Your observations really tie back to the broader picture I’ve been painting in my other posts—specifically that one regarding the death penalty. It all points to the same fundamental dilemma, doesn't it?
Some people are paralyzed by fear, too terrified to even attempt what needs to be done. But those who have already made up their minds? They’ll keep at it with the same relentless consistency as a sunny day, no matter how many times they have to repeat the process. Whether it’s driven by conscious intent or some deep-seated, "unconscious" impulse, it all stems from that same fundamental lack of empathy ingrained during their upbringing—which brings me right back to where I previously praised you.
It’s essentially a fundamental law of nature: if you catch an illness early enough, you can get the necessary treatment before it has the chance to spread. Isn't that the whole point? If we don't intervene at the onset, how can we ever hope to contain the damage?
Look, speaking from my own perspective as someone who lived through those wartime struggles, I’m certain she wouldn't have had the luxury of hair, let alone the ability to style it. Dealing with typhus back then was a brutal reality, so that's my direct answer to your "what if" scenario. How could anyone maintain an appearance like that under such conditions?
Could you give this some thought? I’d really love to hear what you think about it.

Haven't you heard about those four missing girls from that same timeframe? One of them was actually found strangled and assaulted, her body just discarded in a nearby lake. Isn't it chilling how these things happen?
We tend to view our homes as sanctuaries—the one place where we should feel truly safe. When you see organized shelters being set up, it’s a clear sign of premeditated planning. It shows that someone hasn't just reacted to a crisis, but has actually "trained" for it. If you can't continue your daily life out on the streets, what does that say about the stability of our environment? Does it mean the systems we rely on have already begun to fail us?

As you mentioned yourself, you just don't truly grasp it until you've actually lived through it. It’s almost as if you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth—and I don't mean that as a personal jab. Rather, I'm talking about a certain detachment from the reality of those around you. It’s that mindset of "let them eat cake" when people are struggling to put bread on the table. Do you see what I mean?
It seems like you’re hitting on the exact same issue we see with the "prevention is better than cure" philosophy. Your observations really tie back to the broader picture I’ve been painting in my other posts—specifically that one regarding the death penalty. It all points to the same fundamental dilemma, doesn't it?
Some people are paralyzed by fear, too terrified to even attempt what needs to be done. But those who have already made up their minds? They’ll keep at it with the same relentless consistency as a sunny day, no matter how many times they have to repeat the process. Whether it’s driven by conscious intent or some deep-seated, "unconscious" impulse, it all stems from that same fundamental lack of empathy ingrained during their upbringing—which brings me right back to where I previously praised you.
It’s essentially a fundamental law of nature: if you catch an illness early enough, you can get the necessary treatment before it has the chance to spread. Isn't that the whole point? If we don't intervene at the onset, how can we ever hope to contain the damage?
Look, speaking from my own perspective as someone who lived through those wartime struggles, I’m certain she wouldn't have had the luxury of hair, let alone the ability to style it. Dealing with typhus back then was a brutal reality, so that's my direct answer to your "what if" scenario. How could anyone maintain an appearance like that under such conditions?
Could you give this some thought? I’d really love to hear what you think about it.

I find no desire to engage in an argument with you, as it would inevitably lead to a conflict given that you fundamentally fail to comprehend my perspective and my way of thinking.

It is abundantly clear that you are being driven by prejudices, which extends even to this point: "let them eat cake if they have no bread". Are you even aware that during that era, bakers in Paris were actually legally required to sell pastries at the price of bread during shortages? You likely aren't, because if you were, your view of the matter wouldn't be quite so narrow-minded.

Fine, regarding those four girls who died under strange circumstances over a twenty-four-year period—to me, that signifies nothing; twenty-four years is a vast expanse of time.
What presents a much greater mystery to me is something else entirely: a mother who does not go down into her basement for twenty-four years, who hears no cries of children coming from below, and who fails to notice her own daughter has vanished for over two decades... and it concerns me deeply that this very daughter does not mention it during the trial.

Josef Fritzl received his sentence—life in a psychiatric facility. Do you actually understand what that entails? Personally, I consider it a far more harrowing fate than the death penalty.

I am of the opinion that this story has not been told in its entirety, and for that reason, I am not prepared to demand a man's life. Are you? Can you claim to know every single detail of what occurred?

Josef Fritzl is not a healthy individual; his psycho-spiritual state is severely disturbed, and who is to blame for that? Do you truly believe the human psyche simply twists itself spontaneously, as if influenced by some elemental storm? 🙄
While that does not excuse him, it certainly places the burden upon the soul of society at large, for it allows such atrocities to occur. Even if we were to hang Josef Fritzl, what is to stop another father (or MOTHER) from doing the exact same thing to their child, who will then do it to theirs, and so on, into perpetuity. In fact, in certain cultures, such things are commonplace.

Furthermore, incest—as horrific as it sounds to us—has been a normal occurrence, not just in the East, but among many royal bloodlines, Jews, and even in the marshes of Finland. Why? It comes down to the question of tradition, maintaining lineage, and the lack of a wide selection of sexual partners. Not to mention the story of Lot. Where are the roots of incest, and what is its purpose? What role do the mother and her blessing play in the whole narrative?

No, I am afraid that, as electrictiger70 said, I am not prepared to view this matter through a single dimension or to take it for granted.
Ed Gein sentenced in Psychology ·
Sandra Parker3 said:I already explained myself.
I said it was a metaphor, then you insisted it wasn't—honestly, it’s like you’re living inside my head or something, which is pretty weird, and now you're circling back to ask if it was maybe a metaphor after all. 🤷

**This whole thing is such a weirdly phrased setup—I honestly can't tell if they're talking about an actual bullet or just using it as some heavy-handed metaphor.**

By the way, if you check my first post on the other page, you'll find exactly where and why I brought up that bullet—there's a full explanation waiting for you there.

Look, let's just move on from me for a second.

I'll give you some credit—you actually have some pretty interesting takes on things. I asked you about this before but never really got an answer, so I figured I’d just take the opportunity to ask again.
odnosi se na misli iz ovog posta:

I'd actually love it if you could explain to me where exactly the "aesthetic" lies in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, if you ever get around to it.

I still can't help but feel that Bill Clinton, no matter how much we try to dismiss him, just isn't in the same league... I mean, there's at least a shred of transparency to his moves, and he’s actually replaceable—not that I want to get all political on you by pointing out he was actually elected or whatever.

I forgot to mention one thing—also, I asked you this before, but what do you think: if Jeffrey Dahmer hadn't had his own daughter, would he have just snatched some girl off the street to find a replacement?
Do you think his crime would have carried more weight back then?

I am asking simply because I require certainty before I can truly believe it.

I would genuinely appreciate it if you could explain to me where one finds any sense of aesthetics in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, if you can manage such an explanation.

Sandra Parker3, I have no desire to engage in a competition with you regarding moral qualities, as I am under the impression that no single virtue exists without its corresponding flaw within the same individual. I merely ventured to express my own perspective, which is that I feel a profound concern for those who are too quick to pull a trigger... or do you maintain that such people are perfectly fine, even when their actions are framed as nothing more than a metaphorical joke?

edit: I neglected to mention something; I had also asked for your opinion on whether, had Jeffrey Dahmer not had his own daughter, he would have abducted a girl off the street to serve as a substitute?
And in your estimation, would his crime have carried even greater weight in that scenario?

I am not particularly inclined toward speculating on "what if" scenarios; for me, only the concrete reality of a situation holds any significance.

What do you suppose I would have worn—sneakers or knit booties—had I been a resistance fighter during the war? 🙄

And lest I forget... since you are so firmly convinced that mortality, or specifically the death penalty, serves as a deterrent against monstrous acts, how do you account for the fact that such crimes continue to be perpetrated despite the execution of so many criminals? 😕
Ed Gein sentenced in Psychology ·
Sandra Parker3 said:hiddenhound3, if you find yourself getting stung by the whole picture every single time, it's just for the sake of the truth.
Like this example here:

But all that stung you was this, and you say "by chance":

I don't usually quote myself, but...
Since you clearly know what it means to take things out of context and how it feels when only a fragment stings you...
You are a living example of how nothing is ever quite what it seems at first glance; sometimes it's much better, and sometimes it's... where's that smiley of yours? Ah, there it is: 🤮

To summarize our discussion, since we clearly seem to be talking past one another.

Do you truly believe that killing this man and his associates is justifiable, or are you speaking purely in metaphors? I must admit, I am genuinely perplexed by your stance.

Please, enlighten me as to what your actual intention was behind those comments.

It seems you aren't concerned with his ultimate fate, yet you feel he—along with several others—deserves a bullet to the head, even though you claim to have no interest in the concept of vengeance.

Is that indeed the point you are trying to make?
Ed Gein sentenced in Psychology ·
Sandra Parker3 said:sweetheart, just read the whole thing first

from now on, quote the entire paragraph instead of cutting my thoughts in half—I really hate that.

otherwise, I'm going to assume this is just a cheap way of twisting my words.😉

later

I am quoting specifically what strikes me as problematic, and what happened to strike me was your attempt to justify a bullet to the head for the sake of more than one person.

My apologies, but: 🤮 👎 🙈 😱 🙂

It truly concerns and unsettles me that people are so quick and eager to pull the trigger.

There is no room for metaphors when you are discussing pressing a gun against someone's temple.

There is no such thing as righteous indignation; those are merely stories for teenagers—nothing justifies murder.
Ed Gein sentenced in Psychology ·
dustyskipper3 said:That is true, and I guess that is why I made that comparison to Hannibal Lecter. In a way, he is a psychopathic cannibal, yet he almost comes across as the decent one when you consider the absolute rot that makes up the typical members of society he consumes. Still, you have to admit, he does respect Agent Clarice because she possesses a certain... primal purity. You have to give him credit for that.

It is similar to how E. A. Poe was unfairly branded a monster. His "Salieri," who was consumed by jealousy over his talent, spread all sorts of nasty rumors about drugs and insanity that people still believe to this day. I wonder, which one was the greater monster? Was it Poe, who wrote macabre stories and had a much younger wife, or that slippery editor, who was considered such a respectable and dignified figure in high society?
Maybe it is like Sanders?😍

Personally, I find that whenever someone harbors the ambition to enter politics, my immediate instinct is to assume they are somewhat mentally unstable.🤷

Do you think he is actually sane? 😕
Ed Gein sentenced in Psychology ·
Sandra Parker3 said:
I honestly don't know why I bother engaging with this stuff sometimes. It’s just one thing after another. [Username] says:
Construction sites, guillotines, and death row... what a mess.

I cut the rest of the post because it was way too long, but this is really about the whole thing.

Nah, that’s just not how I see it, but hey, that's just my take.
Monsters are born, plain and simple, but telling someone "I'm sorry, but there's nothing we can do about it" isn't a real answer.
Yeah, for a birth, let's just say that isn't an option here.
But that doesn't apply to actually committing a crime, because that's where things can really go sideways.
An unfulfilled monster. 😁
Do you really think that's actually doable?
Yeah, me too.

Not every mental struggle is some unstoppable disease you just have to surrender to.
Either someone steps in to stop it, or some outside force shuts it down.
Or just scale it back.

Revenge and retaliation? Just different flavors of the same bitter pill.
Oh please, I don't care about that. I only said "bullet to the forehead" regarding him specifically—not everyone else—so you really shouldn't go thinking there's some kind of mass murderer hiding inside me.
It was just a figure of speech.
As far as I'm concerned, I couldn't care less how he—or they—ends up paying for their work.
I'm curious how everyone will react to these kinds of discoveries—will there actually be any real accountability? I wonder if they’ll call it punishment, or just try to spin it as "treatment" or some kind of "preventative measure."

Because if you stop even one part of these kinds of actions, or things like them, you might actually be able to prevent the rest from happening.
Make sure you aren't sending out the wrong message.
In that sense, a crime is just a crime... evil is evil.

My bad, I was typing in a rush.

I don't know what to tell you about Florine. It’s just one of those things. kaže:
...
Look, my position on this is pretty straightforward. No one actually sets out to be a villain.Evil is just what happens when things get out of whack, but everyone focuses on the tip of the iceberg because it’s easy. It's much harder to actually dive into the deep, cold, dark water to find where the real problem is hiding.

I really can't get behind this at all.
A complete and total lack of accountability for one's own actions.

It’s not like the people around you don't have a role to play—they definitely aren't doing their part and they carry their own share of the blame—but at the end of the day, you can still commit an evil act regardless of your intentions or how much you actually realize what you're doing.
No amount of illness will ever justify the intention.
Bringing up an illness as some kind of excuse or explanation is all the same thing now; it just feels like someone trying to manufacture an alibi.
I'm not even talking about the truly deranged ones right now—the types who could actually be written off by a psychiatric evaluation or whatever.

This is nothing more than the most pedestrian, conformist way of washing one's hands of responsibility. It will yield nothing of value for anyone; it will only result in a river of blood served up to satisfy the hunger of the bloodthirsty.
Ed Gein sentenced in Psychology ·
Sandra Parker3 said:not me
because that just sidelines the actual act and the victim

and leaves you with this "oh, poor little broken person" vibe... but if you're acting like that, you're basically saying you're powerless,
that you aren't responsible for what you do, that you just act on impulse and we'll all just eventually
fix you up.
🙄

Execution sites, guillotines, the death penalty, or any form of prohibition, mandate, or repression has never actually improved the collective mental health of humanity; therefore, the same logic cannot be applied to the murder of Fritz. You have misconstrued my intentions; I am not offering anyone applause, I am simply stating an observation. The man is mentally ill, period—I am not attempting to excuse him. Should we go ahead and kill a sick man under the assumption that doing so will somehow cure the sickness in everyone else? 😕 That would be your solution... wouldn't it? 🤷 Do you truly believe that tormenting and seeking vengeance against this man will return his daughter the years she lost, or alleviate the profound suffering they endured? 😕 I would bet anything that it will not.

One must accept the reality that humanity is flawed and that monsters of this nature will continue to be born indefinitely. It is a tragic truth that breaks my heart, but such things are impossible to prevent. As for revenge? What purpose does it serve? The man has already been sentenced to life in prison; what more could possibly be required?

To conclude my thoughts on this matter—people possess a fascination with execution sites; people hunger for the suffering of others; people harbor sadistic tendencies and find a twisted sense of satisfaction in seeing others tormented. Those who hold such views are no healthier in their minds than Fritz himself, but unfortunately, this is the general condition of mankind—if not to say, it is inherently human.

EDIT: My position is that no human being intends to commit evil. Evil arises as a consequence of psychological instability, and we often focus too much on the tip of the iceberg because it is easier than plunging our heads into deep, cold, dark waters to search for the actual root of the problem.
Ed Gein sentenced in Psychology ·
Sandra Parker3 said:Sure, but you have to actually be made before you can even think about being born.
So, the absolute bottom line is just making kids, though obviously not every single instance of procreation is a total disaster. Still, I can see someone—or maybe they already have—coming up with an even more "fascinating" theory that every single problem in existence stems directly from the act of having children.

What difference does a journalist's diagnosis make? It’s not like it’s obvious, so why bother? And as for that other guy, just publish his diagnosis too—it won't hurt anyone, and honestly, I'm pretty sure people have done that before anyway.

That might be an explanation, but it’s hardly an excuse for those murderers.

I don't know what I was thinking, but I guess I just felt like typing that out. Honestly, sometimes my brain just glitches. kaže:
Fritzl wasn't some predator prowling the streets snatching up girls to stash in a basement; he wasn't exactly built like your typical serial killer. Honestly, he just seems like one deeply unfortunate man whose entire foundation was broken from the start. And let's be real—unhappy people aren't exactly in a position to spread any kind of joy.

I honestly wonder if he wouldn't be such a disaster if he didn't have his daughter to blame for all his mess.
He’d just find some replacement daughter out on the street and drag her right back down into that same basement.
Is his misfortune still the center of attention?

(anyway, he wasn't trying to spread happiness, just trying not to stumble into disaster—someone else's disaster, obviously)

I'm having a hard time seeing where you find any nobility here, and I'm especially lost on what you mean by "aesthetic"
maybe you're talking about posters and the polished glow of a Christmas tree?

As for Sanders and those other little monsters, you can't even make that comparison because it just cheapens the weight of this specific crime.

Every single crime is... a crime, in its own way.

But these two don't share enough common ground to even attempt a comparison.

I tend to view this primarily as a psychological disorder or a sickness, which then manifests as a criminal act.
Ed Gein sentenced in Psychology ·
dustyskipper3 said:I believe he did it out of LOVE. 😍 And primarily maternal love—certainly a twisted kind, very much in the vein of Edgar Allan Poe and Hannibal Lecter, I suppose—but any other explanation would just be trivial and, ultimately, incorrect.

The lawyer for Jeffrey Dahmer is right, though I imagine everyone will spit on him because he actually dared to speak the truth. It probably would have been easier if he had just defended Jeffrey Dahmer as a complete psychopath with zero feelings. But, perhaps, he realized that deep within that monstrous soul, there is actually profound suffering.

He felt he had to isolate his daughter from society because, being so caring, he feared they would corrupt her and turn her into just another freak tailored to fit that "Talmudic-Zionist" society—a woman who works, takes on male roles, and possesses her own will. Meanwhile, Jeffrey Dahmer was a sincere and convicted proponent of the macho ideal, or rather, the ideals they had already adopted from Otto Weininger and other ideologues of masculinity. He made sure his daughter embraced those values too, ensuring she wouldn't break away from his parental care; he even provided a substitute for the husband she wouldn't have had anyway (since people like that aren't really born anymore, just some feminized Zionist monstrosities). In his world, we and the society we've built are the freaks, and his monstrous actions were justified by the pursuit of higher ideals for an Aryan family—children, kitchen, church, and all that. It’s been noted that this is almost commonplace in the Arab world, so I guess why wouldn't someone here arrive at a similar idea? 🙂
Besides, he is actually a victim himself—he destroyed both himself and his family, much like how someone else destroyed him through overly successful, extreme upbringing. There is a psychological mechanism that turns a victim into an executioner, which is visible on an international scale (for example, Palestinians and Jews, and then again with us in Canada, etc.).

The problem is just how many more of those Jeffrey Dahmers are living around us, people who subjugate their families and loved ones through purely economic methods of pressure without even needing to go as far as making the basement door rattle. 😱

Humanity has always been confronted by such behaviors that exist entirely outside the realm of conventional reason. Jeffrey Dahmer is not an isolated case, nor are Poe or Hannibal. In much the same way, we see the perverse darkness of figures like Elizabeth Báthory, the way Celin glorified an obsession with youth, or how Genet embraced criminality; there are many others who live perpetually on the edge. Jeffrey Dahmer did not simply roam the streets snatching girls to hide them in a basement; he wasn't your typical serial killer archetype. He was quite clearly a deeply unfortunate man built upon fundamentally broken foundations. Unhappy people are simply incapable of sowing seeds of happiness.

I might even venture to suggest that there is a certain nobility and aesthetic quality to be found within their personas.

The true monsters walk freely among us every single day. Take someone like Ivo Sanders, for example.